State of Hawaii v. Trump
Filing
157
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MICHAEL B. KEATING'S MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE 149 . Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 3/13/2017. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Michael Keating to be notified thru local counsel of record Brett Tobin
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAII; ISMAIL
ELSHIKH,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his
official capacity as President
of the United States; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in
his official capacity as
Secretary of Homeland
Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE; REX TILLERSON, in his
official capacity as Secretary
of State; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants.
______________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 17-00050 DKW-KSC
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MICHAEL B.
KEATING’S MOTION TO APPEAR
PRO HAC VICE
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MICHAEL B. KEATING’S
MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE
On March 13, 2017, the Michael B. Keating filed a
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
Doc. No. 149.
The Court finds
that the Motion is incomplete, as Mr. Keating failed to
provide an answer to paragraph 7 of his declaration, which
asks that counsel identify the courts in which he or she is a
registered CM/ECF user.1
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the
Motion without prejudice.
1
Mr. Keating otherwise satisfies the requirements set
forth in Local Rule 83.1(e).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
Honolulu, Hawaii, March 13, 2017.
_____________________________
Kevin S.C. Chang
United States Magistrate Judge
CIVIL NO. 17-00050 DKW-KSC; STATE, ET AL. V. TRUMP, ET AL.; ORDER DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE MICHAEL B. KEATING’S MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?